Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:36AM
from the can-i-patent-the-reuben dept.

An anonymous reader writes "On March 16th, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a very broad patent on motion control in computing devices, one that seems to cover any smartphone that uses a built-in accelerometer. It was filed in July 2006 and preceded by a nearly identical patent granted in 2004 after a 2001 application. So it predates many of today's popular smartphones — the iPhone, the DROID, the Nexus One, etc. What will happen if the company that owns the patent asserts it?"

wherein the initial motion meets or exceeds an initial motion threshold; sensing a complementary motion of said computer device in a reverse direction to the initial direction

As long as the iPhone or Android do not use one threshold and are more generic than detecting reverse direction, they do not infringe on that patent. Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.

How about "a bigcorp" reading all the patent applications about to be granted, looking for something clever that was patented by an independent individual but never put to market. This bigcorp then builds some device that are close - but not 100% identical. Bigcorp markets the product, waits to get sued. When sued, they simply argue "it's not entirely identical." Since it's an individual, they might just accept a relatively small settlement and maybe even sell their patent to bigcorp as going to court is ve

Well, yeah - but that is more a problem of the US litigation system than of the patent system. Where I come from (Europe), the costs of lawsuits is not nearly as high as in the US. Combine that with a loser-pays system and the possibility to get lawsuit cost assistance from the government if you are a broke individual inventor, and the small guy actually stands a chance. Oh, and lawyer costs are somewhat limited, too, so no $750 bill just for that quick lunch meeting where nothing actually happened.

So then use multiple thresholds in your solution and it's a different thing.

So if I use two guns when commiting a felony, do I get around any laws about using a gun in the commission of a felony? I would have thought that would be construed as two cases of using a gun, not no cases of using a gun.

Note that the claim defines a "complementary threshold" for the forward and reverse motion respectively. So it already claims two thresholds which may, or may be not identical. Contrary to popular belief, the language of claims is actually quite precise and not made for obfuscation. It might seem obfuscated at the first glance, but so would a "Hello World" program in C to someone who only knows BASIC: "What the fuck is all this int main... crap about when a simple 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD" would do?". You gotta learn the language.

Unfortunately, algorithms are often dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in. When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.

I'm not so sure about that. The behavior of mechanical devices is dictated by mathematical properties of the world we are living in, but what different mechanical devices of the same class try to do is to benefit from these properties in the best way possible, not unlike, e.g., different implementations of the same basic algorithm. It's like having a Wankel engine and an Otto engine: they both exploit the Carnot cycle, but the Carnot cycle can't be patented, just as, e.g., the effectiveness, and perhaps eve

When two people solve the same mathematical problem, it's not all too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution.

And yet, in many cases they don't. If people always tended to arrive at the same conclusion there wouldn't be, for example, a whole variety of different search algorithms and then subsequent variety of optimizations to those original algorithms.

What if someone patents a solution to a particular mathematical or computational problem that is provably optimal and no better can ever be found? Is such a patent supposed to stimulate "innovation" (whatever that means), when everybody knows that it can't be improved upon and if the other companies (e.g.) want to stay in business, they will have to use suboptimal algorithms or move somewhere else?

Whether or not such a patent stimulates innovation depends on whether it is truly novel, whether it represents real and expensive research, how long the patent lasts for, whether it is practical for engineers to actually read patents, and so on.

Put another way, if it will probably cost $10M to find the optimal algorithm to a problem, but your competitors can copy it for free, would you invest? If the answer is no, then a (good) patent system might change your mind and stimulate innovation.

I would invest into companies that develop, maintain, market and support actual touchable, buyable, usable software solutions and services. Even if you have the algorithms, this part is hard enough, and there's a lot of difference to be done even if all the companies on the market have the same algorithms.

That argument applies to inventions in general doesn't it? "Inventions are often dictated by the physical properties of the world we live in, so when two people solve the same problem it's not too surprising that they tend to arrive at the same solution."

That's my problem with patents in general. The system is supposed to make everyone better off by giving you exclusive rights to your invention, but what it really does is encourage companies to file patents and discourages them from making products they can be sued over.

a) Nothing, but they are often unintentionally used in an interchangeable fashion.
b) Both are often abused by those who hold them with what can be reasonably described as nefarious or deceitful intent.
c) Both a & b.
d) All of the above.

"I think algorithms are difficult to create. Anything that's difficult to create and used to make money needs protecting by patent. Therefore, software and business methods patents are legitimate."

Because the US patent system is perfect, right?

Listen - I don't disagree that algorithms are difficult to create. But if you're going to argue that position to legitimise their patentability, at least provide a means by which patent trolling can be avoided. I think you find you can't. Moreover, not bei

And I call it an idea.Something that irrevocably has a human originator/inventor. But that can not be owned by anyone, because that is not fitting physics, but rather like asking what came before time.

And I call it an idea. Something that irrevocably has a human originator/inventor.

I would argue that not all ideas have human *inventors*. Quite often is a human being not an inventor, but rather a *discoverer*. What about the notion of a prime number, or the Fibbonacci sequence? The RSA algorithm? Am I supposed to believe that these things only sprung into being at the moment a math textbook was published? I find that hard to believe.

This was an "on a" patent. Buying things on the internet. GPS in a car. Accelerometer in a phone. They weren't trying to claim an actual invention, as accelerometers in wands and other computer controllers have been around for a long time. They were attempting to patent troll.

We'll have to see how this one turns out. But in general, it seems pretty safe to say that the patent system in this country needs a healthcare-sized overhaul.

wherein the initial motion meets or exceeds an initial motion threshold; sensing a complementary motion of said computer device in a reverse direction to the initial direction

As long as the iPhone or Android do not use one threshold and are more generic than detecting reverse direction, they do not infringe on that patent. Whoever wrote that claim made it way too specific, and easy to work around it.

An accelerometer only measure acceleration, a change in direction is a big acceleration. A big change in direction can cause the signal to clip, when this happens you get random data. You have to apply a transfer function; a lower limit threshold that is above the noise floor, and limit small movements, and a high threshold to prevent any clipping.

You either didn't explain yourself very well, or you really don't know what you are talking about. If you do-

How is a 'clipped' signal random ever? A clipped signal is one that saturates the max maximum or minimum so when it should be varying out side of the range, it is pegged at exactly one value. E.G. input (0-5 accepted): 2,3,4,5,6,7,6,5,4 -- actual: 2,3,4,5,5,5,5,5,4

The rest of your post is really generic-

"You have to apply a transfer function" Which one? For what mathematical purpose?

That's just totally wrong. A decelerating object will eventually change direction, no matter how small the deceleration. Not to mention relativity -- "change in direction" is entirely dependent on reference frame, whereas acceleration is completely INDEPENDENT of frame (for inertial frames). Your statement is insane.

Exactly right. Could at least the editors read the claims before posting nonsense like "cover any smartphone with built-in accelerometer"? This patent is not overly broad in any sense. It may be obvious - accelerometers are known, forward-back mousgestures are known, so the combination might lead the man skilled in the art to the subject matter of claim 1, but this patent in no way threatens "any smartphone".

Could at least the editors read the claims before posting nonsense like "cover any smartphone with built-in accelerometer"? This patent is not overly broad in any sense.

Claim 1 covers any computing device which can be controlled by moving it back and forth, up and down, left and right, or turning it in both directions around any of the three axes. That's not overbroad?

Claim 1, as I read it, covers one specific mode of input for computing devices, namely a forward-reverse motion combo of the device. Just the fact that such a motion combo can be detected by a device, as it is with many modern smartphones, is not enough to infringe. The smartphone must actually react to this combo - i. e. generate a control signal. So, if you leave out this specific input gesture, you can build motion controlled smartphones as freely as you wish. That's not broad in my view. As I said, on a

I'm still trying to figure out how this isn't invalid based on the prior art (and "obvious to anyone skilled in the art") of inertial navigation systems that have been around since the 1950's (or thereabouts) that used accelerations in all six degrees of freedom to change the operating state of a computer. This fails the common sense criteria: if I add accelerometers as interface inputs to a mobile computer, I get the expected result that those inputs can be used to control the computer. There's no "inventi

On a quick-and-dirty view, the patent is probably novel over inertial navigation systems, because those probably did not generate a specific control signal after a specified back-and-forth motion combination, as it is claimed in claim 1. Also, one could argue that in the case of the inertial navigation system, the computing device controlled and the navigation system are separate entities, which also underscores the novelty of the claim. If you talk about simple novelty, there is no significant barrier - ea

I'm curious how this is legitimately patentable. I can understand patenting an accelerometer, and even understand patenting the software techniques for motion sensing (even if I disagree with software patents), but how exactly do you take two technologies that already exist, tie them together in an ever so slightly different way, and call it patentable? The only difference between this and something like the WiiMote is that the input from the WiiMote's accelerometer is transmitted wirelessly to the console

I'm curious how this is legitimately patentable. I can understand patenting an accelerometer, and even understand patenting the software techniques for motion sensing (even if I disagree with software patents), but how exactly do you take two technologies that already exist, tie them together in an ever so slightly different way, and call it patentable?

I haven't read the entire patent myself. But if what you are saying about it is true, then it's a dead duck patent. Using two patented things to together in

Not as such. The method in question says specifically that the system involves PDAs and other such devices (claims 12-18 of the patent application).

Not exactly... Each claim represents an independent invention (the dependent claims are read as if they had every element of the independent claim, plus the additional elements in the dependent claims).
Basically, if claim 1 is: A+B, and claim 2 is "Claim 1, plus C", then there are two inventions: A+B, and A+B+C.

This gives rise to a doctrine called claim differentiation. Because A+B+C is a different invention than A+B, then A+B must also include A+B+!C.

Additionally, the patent covers movement of the computing device, not movements of an input device. As a mouse is not a computing device as such, it is not covered. Doesn't help for obviousness, though.

What to do if the patent is asserted? Hunt down the parties responsible and butcher them like cattle. I don't know anything about hiring assassins, but surely compared to the hundreds of millions (billions?) paid out in bullshit patent lawsuit settlements, buying the death of the head of every known patent troll company (and their lawyers) would be a drop in the bucket, and probably a net benefit to society aside. Imagine if RIM were run by the mafia - they'd have taken care of this years ago, and anyone le

Inertial navigation systems use accelerometers as input to a computer for controlling its output (Navigation readings, autopilots, etc), and have been used in (civilian and military) aviation for decades. Doesn't that negate this patent as prior art? Or can you now patent the application of an idea to a market? Or am I misunderstanding how vague this patent is?

How so? It's more likely that Apple & Co will just pay that company.
Especially if that company doesn't make a single thing (except lawsuits), and thus infringes on zero patents.
How's that for patents encouraging innovation...

Well, the person who invented it get a bunch of royalties or a large sum for the patent, and are encouraged to innovate more.
Alternately, to avoid paying royalties or lump sums, Apple and others invent different ways to accomplish what they want, and are encouraged to innovate around the patent.

I had a pedometer in the 90s that used motion to record events, each motion event would trigger an update on the display, it was hand held when reading the display, and it was a computing device that would calculate distance traveled (not to mention history). Sounds like it covers just about every aspect of that patent.

I had a pedometer in the 90s that used motion to record events, each motion event would trigger an update on the display, it was hand held when reading the display, and it was a computing device that would calculate distance traveled (not to mention history). Sounds like it covers just about every aspect of that patent.

You didn't read the claims of the patent, did you? I've never seen a pedometer that can independently detect at least six fields of motion.

and wherein the initial or complementary motions comprise motion in one or more of at least six fields of motion including lateral x, y, or z motion or rotational x, y, or z motion

Emphasis mine. They aren't claiming you have to detect all six. The "at least six fields" part is just defining the set of possible motions to detect; not that you have to detect all six of them. At least that is my take on that line.

Prior art isn't a very good defense [slashdot.org]. You don't have to find something that fits the description (which may or may not be related to the actual patent), you have to find something that matches all the claims. If your pedometer didn't do exactly what is in the claims section, it is not prior art.

In this case, if this company decides to sue an open-source project, it would be easier to find a workaround and publicize it far and wide, so everyone knows they don't have to license this patent anymore, they ca

When I first read the headline, I was expecting to read about a new phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard wherein the slide-out mechanism moves in a manner akin to Lovecraftian abominations, defying our understanding of the laws of physics and driving people irrevocably mad from the revelations, all while trying to text their friends.

But disappointingly, it's the PATENT that's scary, not the smartphone motion. Ah, well. I'll just have to find some other way to get those dang texting kids off my lawn.

I am not a patent lawyer (yet), but I can assure you, we are not in league with any Fungus from Outer Space nor with any Old Ones, New Ones or Ones of Any Intermediate Age. And my personal Shoggoth is always properly leashed. No danger there at all. IA! IA! Shub-Ni*COUGH*. Sorry gotta go. Something's outside... *Tekeli-li... Tekeli-li....*

But disappointingly, it's the PATENT that's scary, not the smartphone motion.

Hey, it's a patent story on/. so you should consider yourself fortunate that it has anything to do with phones at all. The usual standard around here is that the headline says "XYZ Patents Breathing!" while the patent is actually for an extremely specialized widget that fits into a particular style of respirator used only by a few high-altitude climbers in yak-roasting emergencies.

Got to wonder how aggressively the people like Analog Devices, Honeywell, Motorola (Freescale) will do to invalidate this patent, since they own the manufacturing process. I sincerely hope they look not just to invalidate this patent, but all other patents "owned" by these applicants as payback. What the [Obscene Gerund] were the Patent Office reviewers thinking?

Everyone should review the slashdot story on faxed Patent Submissions. Seems they are getting so many submissions they can't spend time to reorient upside-down applications. ALOT of postings were hillarious; the simplest fix is to rotate all pages 90 degrees in the fax machine. The Patent Office, by their rule, has to take them.

And the end result of all this? Patent lawyers get paid, and someone may or may not pay something to someone else. The only thing that patent laws guarantee is the employment of patent lawyers.

Yeah, yeah, patent laws occasionally have good results. I just haven't seen one in a while - the wireless one was probably the last one. They're just being used as legal bombs to bludgeon someone into submission.

Let's see. There is employment of about 3.2 million in Information Services. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm [bls.gov]
There are about 20,000 active patent attorneys in all fields, and about 6,000 patent examiners in all fields. Even if they all worked in IT, nothing would change. Even if you double those numbers to include support staff.
It is arguable that Slashdot wastes more IT productivity in a day than the patent system could ever hope to. And examiners are much more useful in the chemical arts becaus

What will happen is the same thing that happens with any patent troll. The large companies that infringe will either cross-license their own patents back to Durham Logistics or pay royalties if the cost is reasonable. If the Durham Logistics demands too much, someone (again a big corporation) will buy the company, or sue them into oblivion and get the patents in the judgment. Small companies and individual entrepreneurs without deep pockets or a patent portfolio will be screwed, as usual.

1. Giant corporations and fast attack hitmen will do battle.2. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of dollars of our GDP will be redistributed to law firms.3. Tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of dollars of our GDP will pay the salaries of judges and court functionaries.4. Some of the parties will give some of the other parties giant piles of cash in a settlement before the court pass

OOOOOOO that mnakes it interesting. Isnt apple suing goolge for infringing patents? No wonder why google isn't scared. All they have to do is buy these paotents from one of the employees and google can realiate.

I did the initial demo software integration under contract for an accelerometer manufacturer and a phone maker (whom shall remain nameless for now). But I sure as hell have prior art, it's an exact match, predates the application, was shown publicly at large trade show, and I (and 2 Fortune-100 companies) can prove it. I personally dont have a stake in this, but what do I do now?

I recall that I saw a hardware add-on for the PalmPilot back in 1999 that did this.

Oh yeah. I think I found it... or one of them: Palm Tilt Sensor [harbaum.org]. I remember a lot more freeware apps than are available on that page, there being more than one of them seems quite likely.